Skip to content

Fixed parser locations#7189

Merged
michaelstaib merged 12 commits intomainfrom
gai/fix-parser-locations
Mar 9, 2026
Merged

Fixed parser locations#7189
michaelstaib merged 12 commits intomainfrom
gai/fix-parser-locations

Conversation

@glen-84
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@glen-84 glen-84 commented Jun 24, 2024

Summary of the changes (Less than 80 chars)

  • Fixed parser locations.

@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov Bot commented Jun 24, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 77.96%. Comparing base (b5e9821) to head (7b443c1).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #7189   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   77.95%   77.96%           
=======================================
  Files        2839     2839           
  Lines      142667   142667           
=======================================
+ Hits       111222   111224    +2     
+ Misses      31445    31443    -2     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 77.96% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@glen-84 glen-84 marked this pull request as draft June 24, 2024 15:13
@glen-84
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

glen-84 commented Oct 1, 2024

From Slack (24 Jun at 5:33 PM):

I've marked the PR as a draft, because I think that there is a more general issue here.

As an example, if you want to parse the path here:

{ field1: field1 }
          ^^^^^^ <-- path
  • You call ParseName, which calls ExpectName, which moves to the next token (the }).
  • Then you record the location of the path, and the End is 18 instead of 16 because it's the end of the brace and not of the name token.

The location handling may need to be refactored – I'm not yet sure what the solution is.

@michaelstaib michaelstaib marked this pull request as ready for review March 9, 2026 10:29
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings March 9, 2026 10:30
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review is ineligible. To be eligible to request a review, you need a paid Copilot license, or your organization must enable Copilot code review.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants